Many years ago, I took part in a three-day conflict resolution between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East. Arbinger’s international bestseller on conflict resolution, The Anatomy of Peace, had just been released, and the Shimon Peres Center for Peace in Tel Aviv had gathered a group of Palestinians and Israelis for an interaction, sponsored by the Danish Embassy. Our goal was to foster togetherness and gain an understanding of how to resolve this centuries-old conflict — beginning with individuals. 

When you think about solving the conflict in the Middle East, three days seems woefully inadequate. But whether it’s three days or three years, successful conflict resolution depends on one counter-intuitive truth: Don’t focus on the conflict. 

People in conflict situations already believe their narrative about a situation, and speaking about it invites them to keep repeating the very story that perpetuates the problem. This is equally true in marital and workplace conflicts After three days, officials at the Peres Center said they’d never seen anything so effective in bringing these two ideologically opposed groups together.
Here’s a short timeline of how we achieved it.

Day 1 — Sharing Personal Stories

On our first day together, we asked the group to think about relationships with family members and neighbors. Through interpreters, they shared their stories, and it got participants to think differently about their lives. They shared stories that others in the group could relate to.

For example, a young Israeli listened to a young Palestinian tell a story about his relationship with his father, and both men could see themselves in that story. In the sharing of personal stories, a listener may react to the storyteller by thinking, “I have that exact situation at home or in my community.” The divide between these groups became narrower as they began to see each other as fellow human beings with similar situations and challenges. The concept of peace became immediately more tangible in the room, which in turn made peace in the Middle East slightly more conceivable. 

Day 2 — Rallying Around a Common Cause

The next morning, we had the group do first aid together. After studying a mix of lifesaving skills, they engaged in a series of competitions in mixed teams. The friendly rivalry brought participants together around a common cause and purpose. That afternoon, we set aside time for everyone to choose an activity to do together. Some swam, others talked, and many played soccer. We allowed them to mingle and enjoy these activities with whomever they chose, and we didn’t force integration or manage the groups. The trust they had already established resulted in the Israelis and Palestinians interacting more easily and sharing activities they both enjoyed. 

Day 3 — Applying Lessons Learned

We only got to the subject at hand on day three: conflict in the Middle East. We started by dividing everyone into smaller, mixed groups and assigning them some of the ideas we had studied on the first day around family and neighbors. Each smaller group presented their thoughts to the entire group, sharing examples from their lives. After each presentation, we discussed and clarified the ideas, with the whole morning devoted to examining them thoroughly.

Next, we applied these thoughts to the situation in the Middle East. Each mixed group was invited to apply a series of frameworks to the conflict, from Palestinian and Israeli perspectives. They discussed and used the framework from one perspective and then from the other. Israelis began thinking from their perspective and also from the perspective of the Palestinians, and vice versa. They placed themselves in each other’s shoes. By the end of this final day, the multi-cultural group had developed an unprecedented understanding and respect for each other — more than the seasoned members of the Peres Center for Peace had ever seen. 

How to Resolve Conflict in Seven Steps

1. Don’t focus on the conflict. If you find yourself in a conflict situation and want to resolve it, resist your impulse to focus on the conflict. This is always a mistake and will only make matters worse.

2. Learn together. To get opposing parties to see each other as people — rather than just blaming each other as objects — try to learn something from each other. You might study unrelated ideas that stimulate thought and discussion or engage in learning something about which you are both equally ignorant. 

3. Do things together. Strengthen each party’s ability to see the other as human beings by doing projects and activities together. These should be things both parties care about equally — things that require a joint effort. In the workplace, this might be a project to improve a process or solve a client service challenge. At home, this might include playing games together, hiking up a mountain, or taking a trip to a place of mutual interest.

4. Wait. Only start discussing difficulties in the relationship after successfully applying steps 2 and 3 above. You’ll know when these steps are successful when all parties have begun to develop or rekindle a level of appreciation for the other person as a human being. You’ll know this has happened when both sides start enjoying the joint learning and activities.

5. Consider all perspectives. Don’t allow each side to become a representative and mouthpiece of their viewpoint only. Together, apply each idea to both parties. If you want to think about your ideas separately, that’s fine as well, but take on the role of your partner as you do so and apply insights from your partner’s perspective. Explore, ponder, and stand in each other’s shoes.

6. Repeat Steps 2 and 3. Once you begin step 5, don’t forget to keep doing steps 2 and 3. These two foundational steps ultimately reduce the need for step 5.

7. Stay the course. Don’t become anxious if you still face challenges near the end. Problems are the stuff of life — or rather, the stuff from which a better life is made. Keep following this seven-step conflict resolution roadmap, and remember the wisdom of songwriter and poet Leonard Cohen, who wrote: “Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” 

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2019 to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea. The prize is also meant to recognise all the stakeholders working for peace and reconciliation in Ethiopia and in the East and Northeast African regions.

When Abiy Ahmed became Prime Minister in April 2018, he made it clear that he wished to resume peace talks with Eritrea. In close cooperation with Isaias Afwerki, the President of Eritrea, Abiy Ahmed quickly worked out the principles of a peace agreement to end the long “no peace, no war” stalemate between the two countries. These principles are set out in the declarations that Prime Minister Abiy and President Afwerki signed in Asmara and Jeddah last July and September. An important premise for the breakthrough was Abiy Ahmed’s unconditional willingness to accept the arbitration ruling of an international boundary commission in 2002.

Peace does not arise from the actions of one party alone. When Prime Minister Abiy reached out his hand, President Afwerki grasped it, and helped to formalise the peace process between the two countries. The Norwegian Nobel Committee hopes the peace agreement will help to bring about positive change for the entire populations of Ethiopia and Eritrea.

In Ethiopia, even if much work remains, Abiy Ahmed has initiated important reforms that give many citizens hope for a better life and a brighter future. He spent his first 100 days as Prime Minister lifting the country’s state of emergency, granting amnesty to thousands of political prisoners, discontinuing media censorship, legalising outlawed opposition groups, dismissing military and civilian leaders who were suspected of corruption, and significantly increasing the influence of women in Ethiopian political and community life. He has also pledged to strengthen democracy by holding free and fair elections.

In the wake of the peace process with Eritrea, Prime Minister Abiy has engaged in other peace and reconciliation processes in East and Northeast Africa. In September 2018 he and his government contributed actively to the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Eritrea and Djibouti after many years of political hostility. Additionally, Abiy Ahmed has sought to mediate between Kenya and Somalia in their protracted conflict over rights to a disputed marine area.

There is now hope for a resolution to this conflict. In Sudan, the military regime and the opposition have returned to the negotiating table. On the 17^th of August, they released a joint draft of a new constitution intended to secure a peaceful transition to civil rule in the country. Prime Minister Abiy played a key role in the process that led to the agreement.

Ethiopia is a country of many different languages and peoples. Lately, old ethnic rivalries have flared up. According to international observers, up to three million Ethiopians may be internally displaced. That is in addition to the million or so refugees and asylum seekers from neighbouring countries. As Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed has sought to promote reconciliation, solidarity and social justice.

However, many challenges remain unresolved. Ethnic strife continues to escalate, and we have seen troubling examples of this in recent weeks and months. No doubt some people will think this year’s prize is being awarded too early. The Norwegian Nobel Committee believes it is now that Abiy Ahmed’s efforts deserve recognition and need encouragement.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2019 to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea. The prize is also meant to recognise all the stakeholders working for peace and reconciliation in Ethiopia and in the East and Northeast African regions.

When Abiy Ahmed became Prime Minister in April 2018, he made it clear that he wished to resume peace talks with Eritrea. In close cooperation with Isaias Afwerki, the President of Eritrea, Abiy Ahmed quickly worked out the principles of a peace agreement to end the long “no peace, no war” stalemate between the two countries. These principles are set out in the declarations that Prime Minister Abiy and President Afwerki signed in Asmara and Jeddah last July and September. An important premise for the breakthrough was Abiy Ahmed’s unconditional willingness to accept the arbitration ruling of an international boundary commission in 2002.

Peace does not arise from the actions of one party alone. When Prime Minister Abiy reached out his hand, President Afwerki grasped it, and helped to formalise the peace process between the two countries. The Norwegian Nobel Committee hopes the peace agreement will help to bring about positive change for the entire populations of Ethiopia and Eritrea.

In Ethiopia, even if much work remains, Abiy Ahmed has initiated important reforms that give many citizens hope for a better life and a brighter future. He spent his first 100 days as Prime Minister lifting the country’s state of emergency, granting amnesty to thousands of political prisoners, discontinuing media censorship, legalising outlawed opposition groups, dismissing military and civilian leaders who were suspected of corruption, and significantly increasing the influence of women in Ethiopian political and community life. He has also pledged to strengthen democracy by holding free and fair elections.

In the wake of the peace process with Eritrea, Prime Minister Abiy has engaged in other peace and reconciliation processes in East and Northeast Africa. In September 2018 he and his government contributed actively to the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Eritrea and Djibouti after many years of political hostility. Additionally, Abiy Ahmed has sought to mediate between Kenya and Somalia in their protracted conflict over rights to a disputed marine area.

There is now hope for a resolution to this conflict. In Sudan, the military regime and the opposition have returned to the negotiating table. On the 17^th of August, they released a joint draft of a new constitution intended to secure a peaceful transition to civil rule in the country. Prime Minister Abiy played a key role in the process that led to the agreement.

Ethiopia is a country of many different languages and peoples. Lately, old ethnic rivalries have flared up. According to international observers, up to three million Ethiopians may be internally displaced. That is in addition to the million or so refugees and asylum seekers from neighbouring countries. As Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed has sought to promote reconciliation, solidarity and social justice.

However, many challenges remain unresolved. Ethnic strife continues to escalate, and we have seen troubling examples of this in recent weeks and months. No doubt some people will think this year’s prize is being awarded too early. The Norwegian Nobel Committee believes it is now that Abiy Ahmed’s efforts deserve recognition and need encouragement.

It’s important to realize that a memorable photograph doesn’t happen by itself. Firstly, a photographer chooses to press a button at the right moment. Then, an editor decides whether to publish it or not.

My hope as a curator, is that after presenting certain images to an audience they decide not to be bystanders anymore, but begin to participate actively in the world around them, promoting positive change. It’s a chain reaction that can start with a single, powerful image. A photograph makes you think, and since we can visualize what took place, we believe it to be true. The “truthfulness” a photograph represents is its strongest weapon.

The caption to the photograph above is one such example: Twenty-three year-old Abed (Muslim groom) and 19 year-old Arige (Christian bride) walk through the bombed ruins of Beirut, Lebanon, 1983.

Many people shy away from graphic, violent imagery as it makes them uncomfortable. Yet, while we should never force anyone to view anything against their will, the truth must be told. Today, more than ever, we are subjected to sensational and violent images every day, in a mistaken belief by the media that “this is what the audience wants.” It can leave us feeling disengaged and helpless, rather than informed and empowered.

Making Peace was first produced by the International Peace Bureau (IPB), the world’s largest and oldest peace federation to mark their Nobel Peace Prize centenary in 2010. Since then, this outdoor exhibition has traveled to nine major cities and been seen by millions of ordinary people. It presents 124 photos, from an initial research of more than  10,000, that covers a century of photography – from 1914 to the present. The exhibition brings together the work of 111 photographers of all nationalities and the photographs on the following pages are a small sample of their work.

I like to call it the “Beginners guide to peace” as it allows the general public, and especially the youth, to understand better the five elements that are crucial to forming peace. These are: disarmament and nonviolence, conflict prevention and resolution, economic and social justice, human rights, law and democracy, and the environment and sustainable development.

While you may wonder how a photograph can achieve all this, remember that many images have become iconic symbols of their time. The problem with these historic images – such as the photo of a napalmed Vietnamese girl or the raising of a flag over Iwo Jima – is that viewed on their own they tend to reinforce people’s belief that human history is only about conflict. Images have the power to elicit strong emotions and it’s important to present a different story to our children: using images that inspire and reaffirm our belief in humanity. This is the aim of Making Peace.

As the last panel in the exhibition depicts (a full-sized mirror), making peace is really up to you.

www.makingpeace.org

Following is UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ message for World Refugee Day, observed on 20 June:

On World Refugee Day, my thoughts are with the more than 70 million women, children and men — refugees and internally displaced persons — who have been forced to flee war, conflict and persecution. 

This is an astonishing number — twice what it was 20 years ago.  Most of the forcibly displaced came from just a handful of countries — Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia.  In the past 18 months, millions more have fled Venezuela.

I want to recognize the humanity of countries that host refugees even as they struggle with their own economic challenges and security concerns.  We must match their hospitality with development and investment. It is regrettable that their example is not followed by all. We must re-establish the integrity of the international protection regime.

The Global Compact on Refugees, adopted last December, offers a blueprint for modern refugee response. What refugees need most urgently is peace.  Millions of people around the world have joined UNHCR’s [Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] World Refugee Day campaign and are taking steps, big and small, in solidarity with refugees.  Will you take a step with refugees too?

Design Thinking (DT), (also known as human-centered design) is an innovation process used to evolve products and services in business and social impact sectors. World-renowned companies like Apple, Google, and GE, use DT for business solutions, and top-tier colleges like Stanford, Harvard, and MIT teach DT to students looking to solve the world’s biggest problems.

But is DT the be-all and end-all to how we solve problems? The short answer is not always. DT is what it says it is: design thinking. We’ve been using our heads, and along the way, we’ve left out our hearts.

DT started being written about in 1987. I was introduced to DT in the early 2000s. Then, business leaders like Daniel Pink, one of the top 15 business thinkers in the world, Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, a design and innovation company, and the d.school, a design-focused learning program, at Stanford University, began introducing DT to the business world.

Throughout my career, I always felt something was missing in the innovation and design process. Design models discounted the impact of emotions and behaviors played in business. I was then introduced to DT and knew this was precisely what was missing. It brought a new perspective to the business world. It placed the “human” at the center of the problem and the solution. DT had the power to transform people and culture, and it has somewhat.

However, because of a lack of understanding of what it means to be genuinely human-centered (you have to connect to your emotions and humanness first), DT’s performance and success has been limited.

It has now been almost 20 years since this concept was introduced into Business. With advancements in technology, smartphones, and social media apps, it seems the world has become more interconnected and disconnected at the same time. There’s a lack of engagement; people have retreated into their own worlds of self-separation and self-protection. This is having a significant effect on organizational outcomes, corporate outreach, and social impact. It limits the ability to connect, hold positive tension and cross-pollinate ideas. If we’re going to solve challenges in the world today, we will have to evolve, find new ways to reconnect and re-engage and work together. That’s where a heart centered approach comes in.

Two years ago, I started working with one of the world’s largest beverage companies.
Our goal was to create a DT innovation lab that would increase employee engagement and improve internal shared services. During workshops, we started noticing barriers that were limiting potential outcomes. Participants thought they were being human-centered, but in reality, they were self-centered. They were unconsciously focused on being right or “winning” rather than establishing meaningful connections.

With the best intentions, they would continue through the DT process and unconsciously revert to a self-centered approach. They mastered the process but could not truly embody the human-centered attributes of empathy, ambiguity, diversity and inclusion, altruism and patience.

We found participants had a lack of awareness of their own humanness; they had not developed their personal internal connections. It made it almost impossible to collapse inner polarities between right and wrong, us and them, and control and curiosity. One of the most significant divides was between the vulnerability and risk inside the workshop, and the fear and scarcity outside the workshop where support and adoption were critical to achieving success.

We came to realize that if we wanted to innovate genuinely, we all would have to connect internally first before we could connect to the problem, the solution and those around us. More meaningful innovation only occurs when we connect the head and the heart, and not, the head and the ego.

“In the past, jobs were about muscles,” said Minouche Shafik, director of the London School of Economics. “Now they’re about brains, but in the future, they’ll be about the heart.”

Both leaders and employees are going to have to become more aware and connected to their humanness. That means learning how to co-create using both the head and heart, collapsing the polarities within ourselves, and over time, with others. We will have to move beyond the user-experience to the human experience and go from a human-centered approach to a heart-centered approach. We will need to create safe spaces and new methodologies that allow us to practice becoming more fully connected, engaged and trusting.

“If we want people to fully show up, to bring their whole selves, including their unarmored, whole hearts – so that we can innovate, solve problems, and serve people – we have to be vigilant about creating a culture in which people feel safe, seen, heard and respected,” wrote Dr. Brene Brown, a research professor at the University of Houston, in her book “Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts.”

DT practitioners would say that DT is excellent and that it does the job, and in some ways it does. However, those professionals may not recognize the disconnect. They see it as just an innovation tool, and not as a powerful transformational tool for people and organizational cultures.

I believe we have the power and the potential to do much more. First, we must change ourselves as facilitators, designers, and leaders. A heart-centered approach means taking off our armor and finding the courage to connect to our own vulnerability, worthiness, shame resilience, bravery, and trust. All of these are integral to innovate and create meaningful change truly. A heart-centered approach is the innovation process of the future.